Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <leader@debian.org> writes:
> * Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> [2004-07-16 10:42]:
>> Is it your opinion that James and Ryan are doing a wonderful job as
>> ftpmasters, and that you wouldn't change anything?
>
> I think ftpmaster as a whole is doing a fairly good job. NEW
> processing is certainly done faster now than a year or two ago and
> feedback is usually given fairly quickly. (Although I'm sure people
> will respond to this mail complaining about their package being stuck
> in NEW; however, the situation has definitely improved and works well
> for most packages).
Oh yes. NEW processing has somewhat made giant leaps in the last
weeks. It sem to have realy picked up shortly after someone posted a
link to a queue/NEW stats page listing packages in new by age. :)
But make your own conclusion. Fact is it has majorly speed up. The
subject came up 2 days ago when a friend and I drew a graph of the
number of new packages per day for the last weeks.
If there is intrst I can probably put those graphs up on alioth since
they were a byproduct of the amd64 port logs.
> As to the AMD64 situation: I've always encouraged people to do good
> technical work and not wait for others to give them a "go". I think
> the AMD64 people have done an amazing amount of work in a relatively
> short period of time. Even though I disagree with some technical
> decision that were made (and I fear they might bite us in the future),
Is that induced by finishing pure64 now instead of waiting on
multiarch (e.g. what you raised before about the LSB) or something
else?
> I personally think their work should be awarded by putting the port in
> the archive. Anyway, this is my personal opinion and the whole idea
> of delegation is that you don't make all decisions yourself. So, as
> to the policy for the new architectures, I think this policy is really
> important as there are a number of pending architectures. I
> personally think we don't have to wait for that policy for AMD64 since
> most points are not an issue there anyway (but see above). As to the
> technical questions ftpmaster wants to raise, I'm quite disappointed
> that they have not been posted yet because I was promised at DebConf
> that it would happen soon. I've now asked someone I trust to find out
> what these issues are exactly so hopefully progress will be made on
> that soon. I've also seen drafts of the new architecture policy and
> the common architecture (mirror) policy and they are proceeding pretty
> well.
>
> --
> Martin Michlmayr
> leader@debian.org
Thank you.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: